The CEA count is nearly meaningless without other tests; the CEA
is only one marker out of many, that is evaluated for health concerns
and/or the presence of cancer.

The “CEA” count can go up or down for many reasons, including
(but not limited to) dietary changes. It’s for that reason, that changes
in the CEA should not be taken too seriously if one ignores all
the other markers that the presence of cancer can change.

Another thing that should be kept in mind (and remind the physician
of as well), is the fact that dying cancer cells will emit
chemicals that will be reflected as a change in the CEA count.
Dying cancer cells will equate to a noticeable rise on CEA!

I had posted periodically that fact (and links to the medical
Journals that support it) on this website. It’ been noted that
many Oncologists had been taking patients off their specific
chemical treatment due to a rise in CEA, feeling that the rise
was an indication that the treatments were not working. The
abandonment of the treatment was causing the loss of patients,
since those treatments were actually working better than expected!

It’s that kind of misinterpretation of diagnostics that is most harmful !!

So….. not only can the dietary matter of herbal remedies change
CEA, but so can an herb’s ability to kill cancer cells. The rise
in CEA - if attributable to the death of cancer cells – could
very well be a sign that the herbal remedy is working!

Cancer cells are not complicated, they are a one cell life form
that began as a normal cell gone bad. They began their new life
using the fermentation process, and continue to survive using
that process. A cancer cell isn’t that much different than an
amoeba or a mold spore as far as it’s simple and basic life
support system; it is not complicated, it is very basic. The only thing
complicated, are the methods used to isolate the single cell and
remove it; our immune system is to date, the only method that works
for that isolation process.

The “complicated cancer cell” notion is brought forth by the
industry alone; the speculation of it's reasons are left to one's
own reasoning.

Here’s a copy of one post I made regarding CEA and dying cancer cells:
____________________________________________________

"Chemotherapy and radiation therapy can cause a temporary rise in
CEA due to the death of tumor cells and release of CEA into the
blood stream. Benign disease does not usually cause an increase
above 10 ng/ml."
From: http://www.medicinenet.com/carcinoembryonic_antigen/article.htm

---------------
"The data presented in this study support both lines of
thought concerning CEA production; however, these results
strongly uphold the theory of CEA release by dying cells."
From: http://etd.lib.ttu.edu/

--------------
"recent observations of CEA upregulation in CRC cell lines by cellular stressors such as
hypoxia9 or exposure to cytotoxic drugs such as 5-fluorouracil.10,11 Moreover, it is plausible
that apoptotic release of CEA from dying cells could trigger transient increases"
From: http://cigjournals.metapress.com/index/8278xq0v077w2166.pdf

-------------
"One possible explanation for the rise in marker levels among
patients with regressing tumor is that the dying cells may
release large amounts of marker into the blood."
From: http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Health/Tumor-marker

------------
"Colorectal cancer patients whose CEA blood tests rise at the
beginning of chemotherapy and then fall (CEA flare) do better
than patients with a consistently rising CEA. CEA flares don’t
necessarily predict worsening cancer.

Compared to patients with consistently rising carcinoembryonic
antigen (CEA), patients who had a CEA flare had more tumor
shrinkage, longer time before their cancer got worse, and longer
survival time."
From: http://fightcolorectalcancer.org/research_news/2009/

------------
"If we had followed this ASCO guideline of measurement of CEA
level every second month, one of the surge patients would have
been incorrectly interpreted as having experienced treatment
failure, and therapy would have stopped. The patient would have
been incorrectly removed from the treatment, giving her a time to
progression of 11.2 months and 27.3-month survival. To avoid
inappropriate therapy changes based on clinical misinterpretation
of a CEA surge as an impending disease progression, we suggest
that future ASCO guidelines should mention the possibility of CEA
surge. Furthermore, we suggest that no therapy changes should be
based on CEA levels alone at all during the first 6 months of therapy.

An initial rise in CEA level during effective chemotherapy in
colorectal cancer patients may not always indicate progression of
disease but may be a transient CEA surge in patients responding
to chemotherapy. In monitoring tumor responses and in future
guidelines for the use of tumor markers, the possibility of a
surge phenomenon should be taken into account. This will
especially be important if a new, more effective treatment with
high response rates or rapid tumor destruction is introduced. "
From: http://jco.ascopubs.org/content/21/23/4466.full

___________________________________________________

I hope that’s of some help to you (and the physician) !

Stay well,
John